1. Appellants have filed this appeal challenging the order dated 30.11.2017, whereby, application moved by them under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellants No.1 and 2 are the parents of deceased Rajesh Kumar, whereas, respondent No.2 is the wife of deceased Rajesh Kumar. Rajesh Kumar got married to respondent No.2 on 16.02.2010. Rajesh Kumar took insurance policies during his life time in the year 2010/2011. Unfortunately, Rajesh Kumar died on 14.12.2013. As per the insurance policies, respondent No.2 was mentioned as a nominee by the insurer. The nominee had right to collect the money payable under the policy on the death of the insured, but was required to pay the share to the other legal heirs as per law. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarbati Devi and Another Vs. Smt. Usha Devi (1984) 1 SCC 424 , wherein it was held as under:-

“We approve the views expressed by the other High Courts on the meaning of section 39 of theand hold that a mere nomination made under section 39 of thedoes not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the life insurance policy on the death of the assured. The nomination only indicates the hand which is authorised to receive the amount, on the payment of which the insurer gets a valid discharge of its liability under the policy, The amount; however, can be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law of succession governing them”.

3. Learned counsel has next placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Challamma Vs. Tilaga and Others (2009) 9 SCC 299 , wherein, it was held as under:-

“There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938 enables the holder of a policy, while effecting the same, to nominate a person to whom the money secured by the policy shall be paid in the event of his death. The effect of such nomination was considered by this Court in Vishin N. Khanchandani & Anr. Vs. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani & Anr, wherein the law has been laid down in the following terms:

"....The nomination only indicated the hand which was authorised to receive the amount on the payment of which the insurer got a valid discharge of its liability under the policy. The policy-holder continued to have an interest in the policy during his lifetime and the nominee acquired no sort of interest in the policy during the lifetime of the policy-holder. On the death of the policyholder, the amount payable under the policy became part of his estate which was governed by the law of succession applicable to him. Such succession may be testamentary or intestate. Section 39 did not operate as a third kind of succession which could be styled as a statutory testament. A nominee could not be treated as being equivalent to an heir or legatee. The amount of interest under the policy could, therefore, be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law of succession governing them."

4. In Smt. Sarbati Devi & Anr. Vs. Smt. Usha Devi, this Court held:

"4. At the outset it should be mentioned that except the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Kesari Devi Vs. Dharma Dev on which reliance was placed by the High Court in dismissing the appeal before it and the two decisions of the Delhi High Court in S. Fauza Singh v. Kuldip Sing and Uma Sehgal Vs. Dwarka Dass Sehgal in all other decisions cited before us the view taken is that the nominee under Section 39 of theis nothing more than an agent to receive the money due under a life insurance policy in the circumstances similar to those in the present case and that the money remains the property of the assured during his lifetime and on his death forms part of his estate subject to the law of succession applicable to him...."

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has opposed the appeal and has submitted that in view of the Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015, the amount invested by the deceased in the insurance policy was liable to be released to the nominee as the insurance policy in the present case was to mature in the year 2031. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Section 39(7) and Section 39(10) of The Insurance Act, 1938 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) as added by Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Amendment Act’).

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 has submitted that as per the Post Office Life Insurance Rules 2011, a nominee under a policy of life insurance has a right to collect the money payable under the policy on the death of the insured and is liable to hand over the share of the other legal heirs of the insured.

7. Section 39(7) as per ‘Amendment Act’ reads as under:-

“Subject to the other provisions of this section, where the holder of a policy of insurance on his own life nominates his parents, or his spouse, or his children, or his spouse and children, or any of them, the nominee or nominees shall be beneficially entitled to the amount payable by the insurer to him or them under sub-section (6) unless it is proved that the holder of the policy having regard to the nature of his title to the policy, could not have conferred any such beneficial title on the nominee.”

8. Section 39(10) as per the ‘Amendment Act’ reads as under:-

“The provisions of sub-sections (7) and (8) shall apply to all policies of life insurance maturing for payment after the commencement of the Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015”.

9. The said amendment came into force with effect from 26.12.2014 and was notified in the Gazette of India on 23.03.2015.

10. As per the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, the nominee of insurance policy receives the insured amount and the legal representatives of the assured can claim their share as per Law of succession. However, in the year 2015, amendment has been made vide the Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 and as per the same, the nominee alone gets the amount on account of death of the insured. No other person can raise claim with regard to the said amount.

11. Section 39(10) of theas added by Amendment Act, lays down that the provision of Sub-section (7) shall apply to all polices of life insurance maturing for payment after the commencement of the said Act.

12. In the present case, the policy matured on the death of the insured. The insured had died on 14.12.2013. In case, the insured had remained alive, the policy would have matured as per the terms of the policy. Thus, the policy matured on 14.12.2013 on account of death of the insured. Hence, in the present case,Section 39(7) of theas added by ‘Amendment Act’ would not apply.

13 .As per the Post Office Life Insurance Rules 2011, a nominee under a policy of the life insurance has a bare right to collect the money payable under the policy on the death of the insured and give a good discharge to the insurer. The nominee does not become the owner of the money payable under the policy and he/she is liable to make it over to the legal representatives of the insured. Thus, the nominee acts as a receiver only, subject to the provision of these Rules.

14. As per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, mother and widow of the deceased Rajesh Kumar are his Class-I legal heirs. Thus, the petition qua appellant No.2 has been wrongly dismissed by the trial court. So far as the appellants No.1 and 3 are concerned, they being father and brother of the deceased cannot be described as Class-I legal heirs and were not entitled to get the share in the polices-in-question on their maturity.

15. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be just and expedient to remand the case to the trial court for a fresh decision on merits in view of the observation made above.

16. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 30.11.2017 is set aside. Trial court is directed to dispose of the appeal afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 29.04.2019.